Mason v. Berryhill, No. 7:2017cv00127 - Document 21 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 9/14/2018. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERKS OFFICE U ,S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED sEP 114221 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CQURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGFNIA ROA N OK E D IV ISION JULwq Du,l >xcu BY; DjE4PJTtVoCLce ERK TAM EISHA M .,o/b/o T.M .,a minor, Plaintiftl CivilActionNo.7:17CV00127 M EM OM NDUM OPINION NANCY A.BERRYHILL,Acting Comm issionerofSocialSecttrity, By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendant. PlaintiffTam eisha M .fled thisadion on behalf ofherson,T.M .,challenging the final decision oftheCom missionerofSocialSecuritydenyingplaintiff'sclaim forchild'ssupplem ental securityincomebenetitsunderTitleXVIoftheSocialSecurityAct,42U.S.C.jj1381-1383(d). Jurisdiction ofthiscpurtisestablished pursuantto42 U.S.C.j 1383(c)(3),which incoporates j205(g)oftheSocialSectlrityAct,42U.S.C.j405(g). By order entered Septem ber 7,2017, the courtreferred this case to a United States M agistrateJudgepursuantto28U.S.C.j636(b)(1)(B). OnAugust8,2018,themagistratejudge subm itted a reportin which he recomm endsthatthe Com missioner'sfinaldecision bç affrmed. Plaintiffhasfiled objectionstothemagistratejudge'sreport,andthematterisnow ripeforthe court'sconsideration. Thiscourtisçharged with perfonning aéqnovo review ofthemagistratejudge'sreport Mason v. Berryhill Doc. 21 and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C.j 636(b)(1). In the instantcase,the court'sreview is limited to a determination as to whether the Commissioner's Vnaldecision is supported by substantialevidence,orwhetherthere is çsgood cause''to necessitate rem anding the case to the Commissionerforfurtherconsideration. See42U.S.C.j405(g). Dockets.Justia.com On M ay 14,2012,Tam eisha M .filed an application for child's supplementalsecurity incom e benefts on behalfofT.M .1 ln ûling the application,plaintiffalleged thathe had been disabled since January 2,2004 (his date of birt h),due to asthma,allergies,attention deficit hyperactivitydisorder(ADHD),thalassemia,andangerissues. (Tr.213). Plaintiffsclaim was deniedupon initialconsiderationandreconsideration. HethenrequestedandreceivedaX novo hearing and review beforean Administrative Law Judge. ln an opinion dated August 17,2015, theLaw Judgealsoconcluded thatplaintiffisnotentitled to child'ssupplem entalsecurity incom e benefits. TheLaw Judge found thatplaintiffsuffersfrom severalsevere im pairments,including ADHD,asthm a,thalassemia and anem ia,and insom nia,butthatnone ofthe conditionsm eetor medically equaltheseyerity ofalisted impainnent. (Tr.15). TheLaw Judgedetermined that plaintiffhasexperienced a &$m arked''lim itation in llisabilityto 'acquire and useinformation since thebegirmingofthe2015 schoolyear, (Tr.20). However,in a11otherrespects,theLaw Judge foundthatplaintiffslim itationsarelessthan m arked, Thus,theLaw Judge foundthatplaintiffs im painuents are notfunctionally equivalent in severity to any listed im pairm ent. Accordingly, the Law Judge concluded that plaintiff is not disabled,and that he is not entitled to child's supplementalsecurity incomebenefits. See generally 20 C.F.R.j416.924. TheLaw Judge's opinion was adopted as the final decision of the Comm issioner by the Social Security Administration's Appeals Cotmcil. Having exhausted all available administrative rem edies, plaintiffhas now appealed to thiscourt. A child is disabled w ithin the m eaning ofthe SocialSecurity A ctif he has a Stphysicalor m entalimpairm ent,which resultsin m arked and severe functionallim itations,and ...which has lasted or can be expected to lastfor a continuousperiod ofnot less than 12 m onths.'' 42 U .S.C. lF0rpurposesofconsistency and clarity,T.M .shallhereinaAerbereferredto astheplaintiffinthiscase. j1382c(a)(3)(C)(i). Undertheapplicableregulations,thedetermination ofwhetherachild meets this definition is determined via a three-step inquiry. 20 C. F.R. j 416.924. The first determ ination is whetherthe child is working and performing substantialgainf'ulactivity. Id. j416.924*). Ifthechildisnotworking,itmustthenbedecidedwhetherthechildsuffersfrom a severeimpairmentorcombinationofimpairments. Id.j416.924/). Ifthechildsuffersfrom a severeimpairmentorcombination ofimpairments,itmustthenbedetermined whetherthechild's impainnentts)meets,medically equals,orftmctionally equalsanimpairmentlistedin20C.F.R. Part404,SubpartP,Appendix1. Id.j416.924(* . To determ inewhetheran impairmentisfunctionally equivalentto a listed impairment,the Law Judgeevaluatesitsseverityinsixdomains' .(1)acquiringandusinginformation;(2)attending andcompletingtasks;(3)interactingandrelatingwithothers;(4)movingaboutandmanipulating objects;(5)caring foroneself;and (6)health and physicalwell-being. 1d.j 416.926a(b)(1). Functional equivalence exists if the Law Judge finds a ttmarked''lim itation in two areas of f' uHCtioning or an çtextrem e''lim itation in one area offtmctioning.z Id. j 416. 926a(d). In this case,the Law Judge concluded thatplaintiffexperiences a çtmarked''limitation ln only one dom ain,and thereforedoesnotqualify forsupplem ehtalsecurity incomebenetks. Aspreviously noted,thecourtreferredthiscasetoamagistratejudgeforareportsetting forth findings offact,conclusions of law,and a recomm ended disposition. ln his report,the magistratejudge recommended thatthe courtaffirm the snaldecision ofthe Commissioner denying plaintiff's claim forèhild'ssupplem entalsecurity incom e benefits. Succinctly stated,the magistrate judge determined thatsubstantialevidence supports the Law Judge's finding that 2A (tmarked''limitationisonethatSsinterferesseriouslywith(theclaimant's!abilitytoindependentlyinitiate, sustain,orcompleteactivities.'' 20C.F.R.j416.926a(e)(2)(i). A çdmarked''limitationEtalsomeansalimitationthat isdmorethan moderate'butSlessthan extreme.''' ld. An dûextreme''limitationisonethatçsinterferesvery seriously with (theclaimant's)ability to independently initiate,sustain,orcompleteactivities.'' ld.j416.926a(e)(3). An dtextreme''lim itationStalso meansalimitationthatislmorethan marked.''' 1d. plaintiffhasexperiencedam arked lim itation in hisability to acquireanduseinform ation sincethe begirming ofthe2015 schoolyem',butthatplaintiffslim itationsarelessthan m arked in al1other areasofft m ctioning,including the dom ain ofattending and com pleting tasks. lnhisobjectionstothereportandrecommendation,plaintiffargues,interalia,thattheLaw Judge relied upon a 2015 teacherquestiormaire in determ ining thatthe plaintiffhas a mazked lim itation in the area of acquiring and using information,butfailed to explain why he gaveno weightto the portions ofthe sam e questionnaire addressing plaintiffs lim itationsin the area of attending and completing tasks. After reviewing the record,the courtagrees with the plaintiff thatthe Law Judge's analysis of the second area of functioning is incom plete and precludes m eaningf'ul review. Accordingly, the eourt finds çsgood cause''to rem and the case to the Commissionerforfurtherdevelopmentandconsideration. See42U.S.C.j405(g). The regulations applicable to a claim for child's supplem entalsecttrity income benefks recognize that school records, including reports from teachers, are ççim portant sotlrces of information''regarding aclaimant'simpairmentts)and itseffectsonhisabilityto function. 20 C.F.R.j416.924a(b)(7). Theregulationsprovidethat,ifyou go to school,tiwewillask your teacherts)aboutyourperformanceinyouractivitiesthroughoutyourschooldayy''andç'gwqewill consideral1theevidencewereceivefrom yourschool,including teacherquestiormaires....'' Id. Although tithere isno rigid requirementthatthe ALJ speciscally referto evely piece of evidenceiphisdecision,''Reidv.Comm'rofSoc.Sec.,769F.3d861,865(4thCir.2014)(citation and internalquotationmarksomitted),açtnecessarypredicatetoengaginginsubstantialevidence review isarecordofthebasisfortheALJ'Srulingy''Radfordv.Colvin,734F.3d288,295(4thCir. 2013). TheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourthCircuithasexplainedthatçsgtqherecord should include a discussion of which evidence the ALJ found credible and why,and specific 4 application ofthe pertinent legalrequirements to the record evidence.'' Id. ççlf the reviewing courthasno way ofevaluating the basisfortheALJ'Sdecision,then the propercourse,exceptin rare circup stances,isto rem and to the agency foradditionalinvestigation orexplanation.'' Id. (citation andinternalquotationmarksomitted). In this case, plaintiff s school records indicate that plaintiff w as found to qualify for accommodationsunderj 504 oftheRehabilitation Actof1973 in Aprilof2015,based on the determination thatplaintiff'sADHD hinders hisability to concentrate and learn. (Tr.299). Plaintiff sgradereportforthethirdnine-week period ofthe2015 schoolyearrevealsthatplaintiff received Cs and Ds in a1lof his letter-graded subjects,with the exception of United States Geography. (Tr.315). ln Apriland M ay of2015,plaintiffsfifth gradeteacherscompleted a teacherquestionnaire generated by the SocialSecurity Adm inistration. Theteachersopined that plaintiffhas Sçobvious''orGsserious''problem s in six ofthe ten listed activities relevantto the domain oftûacquiring and using information.'' (Tr.336). The teachers further opined that plaintiff has ççobvious,''Gsseriousy'' or Sçvery serious''problem s in nine of the thirteen listed activitiesrelevanttothedomainof(çattendingandcompletingtasks.'' (Tr.337). The Law Judge seem ingly relied upon the questionnaire completed by plaintiffsteachers in determiningthatplaintiffhasexperienced am arked limitation intheareaofacquiringand using information since the beginning of the 2015 schoolyear. However,the Law Judge failed to explain why hedidnotcreditotherportionsofthesnm ereport,wllich were favorabletoplaintiff, including the teachers'ratings in the dom ain of attending and completing tasks. Under this domain,the Law Judge considershow wellthe claimantis çtable to focusand maintain Ehisq attention,andhow well(hejbegingsj,carlriesjthrough,apdfnishges)(hisqactivities,includingthe paceatwhich gheqperform rsjactivitiesandtheeasewithwhich ghejchangegsjthem.'' 20C.F.R. 5 j416.926a(h). Theregulationsfurtherprovideasfollows:. W hen you are of schoolage,you should be able to focus your attention in a variety of situations in order to follow directions, rem ember and organize your school materials, and com plete classroom and hom ework assignm ents. You should be able to concentrateon detailsand notmake carelessmistakesin yourwork (beyondwhatwouldbeexpectedinotherchildrenyouragewhodo not have impainnents). You should be able to change your activitiesorroutineswithoutdistracting yourselforothers,and stay on task and in place when appropriate. You should be able to sustain your attention wellenough to participate in group sports, read by yom self,and completefam ily chores. You should alsobe ableto completeatransitiontask (e.g.,bereadyfortheschoolbus, change clothes after gym, change classrooms) without extra remindersand accomm odation. Id.j416.926a(h)(2)(iv). ln determining thatplaintiffhaslessthan m arked limitationsin thearea ofattending and completing tasks,theLaw Judge summarily stated thatçsgrlecordspertaining even to the 2015 schoolyearshow that,compared with others,he iscapableoftaskssuch asplaying,reading,and participatingatareasonablepace,''andthatEtlhleisnotmarkedlylimitedintheseactivities.'' (Tr, 21). TheLaw Judgealso stated,withoutexplanation,thattheratingsnotedon the2015teacher questionnaireareSçconsistentwith''hisdeterminationthatplaintiffhaslessthanm arked lim itations intheareaofattendingandcompletingtasks. (Tr.19). Notably,however,theLaw Judgedidnot addresstheportionsofthequestionnaire indicating thatplaintiffhas an Stobvious''problem with changingfrom oneactivityto anotherwithoutbeingdisruptive;Gçserious''problem swith focusing long enough to finish an assigned activity ortask,refocusing to task when necessary,working without distracting him self or others,and working at a reasonable pace; and Gtvery serious'' problem sw ith carrying outm ulti-step instnzctions,organizing his ow n things or schoolm aterials, completing assignments,and completing work accuratelywithoutcarelessmistalces. (Tr.337). Nordid he explain how theteachers'ratingswereinsufficientto establish am arked limitation in 6 the area ofattending and completing tasksand instead supported hisdeterm ination thatplaintiff haslessthan m arked limitationsin thisdom ain. To theextenttheLaw Judge declined to credit particularportionsoftheteacherquestionnaire,hefailedtoprovide any explanation fordoing so. Forallofthesereasons,thecourtconcludesthattheLaw Judgefailedtobuild an ççaccurate and logical bridge''from the evidence to his conclusion that plaintiff has less than marked lim itationsin the domain ofattending and completingtasks. W oodsv.Berryhill,888 F.3d 686, 694 (4thCir.2018)(internalquotationmarksomitted). Accordingly,remandiswarranted. ld.; see also United Statesv.Hopcood,578 F.3d 696,700 (7th Cir.2009)(remanding forfurther proceedingswherethe Law Judge S'failed to explain why he did notcreditportionsoftherecord thatwerefavorableto gtheclaimant),includingtheteachers'reportsthatfotmd(theclaimant)had seriousorobviousproblemsin (aparticularfunctional)domain'';M urnhyv.Astrue,496F.3d630, 634-35(7th Cir.2007)(remandingforf' urtherproceedingswheretheLaw JudgeGsdidnotexplain whyhegavenoweighttotheportionsoftheschooldocumentswhich supportafindingthat(the claimantjisdisabled,''includingdtevidenceofhisinabilitytoattendandcompletetasks'');Holland ex rel.K.H.v.Colvin,No.8:13-cv-01241,2014U.S.Dist.LEXIS 89885,at*22-27(D.M d.July 2,2014)(remandingforfurtherproceedingswheretheLaw Judgedidnotaddressorexplain the weightgiven to responsesto ateacherquestionnaire indicatingthatthe claim anthad very serious problemsincertain f'unctionaldomains). AfteraX novo review oftherecord,thecourtisconstrained toconcludethatcertain of plaintiff'sobjectionstothemagistratejudge'sreportmustbesustained. Forthereasonssetforth above,the court finds Gtgood cause''for rem and of this case to the Com m issioner for f'urther developm entand consideration.3 See 42 U.S. C.j 405(g). Ifthe Commissioneris unable to decide this case in plaintiffs favoron the basis ofthe existing record,the Com missionerwill conducta supplem entalqdm inistrative hearing at which both sidesw illbe allowed to present additionalevidenceand argum ent. An appropriate orderofrem and willbeenteredthisday. The Clerk isdirectedto sendcertified copiesofthismem orandum opinionto a11cotmselof record. DATED:This 1* # dayofSeptember 2018. , SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 3In lightofthe court'sdecision to remand the case to the Commissioner, the cour' tdeclinesto address plaintiff'srem aining claim soferror. 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
